LETTER: Will Chris Gibson remember district's 47 percent?

Congratulations to Congressman Chris Gibson, R-Kinderhook, for his victory in the 19th District. I am one of his many new constituents who was a fan Saugerties Democratic Maurice Hinchey's positions.

In deference to the majority that elected Gibson and his own views, he must hew to different positions. However, I hope he will moderate his existing views at times in respect of the 47 percent of people in his district who voted for the other guy. I also hope he will put energy into areas where most of his constituents agree, rather than focusing on issues that deepen our differences.

As a responsible representative, and my representative, I expect Gibson to loudly reject the idea held by many in the House -- the bad idea that blocking legislation to make the government or the president fail is either ethical or good politics. Please help President Obama, and the House and Senate do their duty: administrate the government, pay our debts, write budgets, pass law, update law and implement laws appropriate to the 21 first century.

Advertisement

In this vein of cooperation, I see at least two issues where our views encouragingly overlap. I ask Gibson to consider the following as he takes his seat in January:

"I support an 'all of the above' energy policy that includes investments in solar, wind, biomass, hydro, and nuclear energy."

I also hope after Irene and Sandy he joins the scientific consensus that says we must reduce our overall fossil fuel use even as (for other good reasons) we develop our domestic fossil fuel supply. Practically, that means support of market mechanisms, cap and trade and phasing out hidden and overt subsidies to fossil fuel companies, and in addition, direct government support for wind solar bio-mass and appropriate hydro. Honest level-field competition in the energy sector can help but we can't wait for "the market" to save the planet without some direct interventions; the flood clean-ups and FEMA bills are already too much.

"... reform our national security establishment so that we protect our cherished way of life in a manner that is consistent for a Republic."

In this Gibson sounds a little like Eisenhower Republican, when he excoriated the "military industrial complex." It seems we are spending almost as we did at the start of his military career, back when we faced a (mutually) hostile "empire" in the Soviet bloc. Today our main perceived threat comes from isolated small countries we surround and small groups of plotters with suicide in their hearts and utility knives in their hands, but we still spend 50 percent of the world's military budget. We are about 4 percent of the world's people; this is nuts. A republic does not need bases in over 120 other countries, only an empire needs that.

Therefore, in addition to his intent to "... institute reforms to make certain our defense dollars are spent judiciously and effectively," I hope he advocates scaling back the intended missions of our forces to those appropriate for a republic.

To paraphrase Ike, every new battleship, every new tank is a theft from schools for the young, Medicare for the elderly, and investments in our energy future.

I hope Gibson's version of a preference for reduced government will include a drastically but appropriately reduced military with the savings split between government funding of domestic needs (remember Ike), paying down debt (Clinton and Republicans did it in the 1990s, help Obama do it, too!) and tax reduction for the middle class (since everyone seems to agree on the need for that).